The American people in their divine wisdom kept the sleaze Clinton in the White House after a 4 year exposure to his oleaginous mendacity. With such non-standards why not a handoff from Clinton dynasty to Bush dynasty to Clinton dynasty to Bush dyna...? The only hitch is the complete collapse acomin'.

Yes, by all means, let's have more great policy like sweeping EnRon and DotCom under the rug for the next Administration to handle, let's have more great governmental concepts like subprime mortgages, let's have more great military initiatives like picking a fight with the warlords in Somalia and then cut and run when we take some casualties so we can encourage a psycho like bin Laden who Willie can refuse to extradite when offered up on a silver platter.

If he'd stayed in Arkinsaw, he could have been governor for life. Now that he realizes he blew it, he wants the same thing on the national level because he figures all the sex-starved women who voted for him twice are still stupid enough to do it some more.

I actually kind of like the idea of someone being able to serve again as president, after a break. Term limits should be decided at the ballot box. I still figure out why FDR was elected three times. That was freaky. Don't see it happening again.

It is very interesting that a mostly liberal person like Ann has built up such an apparently conservative audience. In part, it is just that the blog is interesting and smartly written. It may also reflect that conservatives have a respect for, and maybe even a yearning for, liberals who will intelligently and honestly address issues.

The Clintons would love to push Obama overboard, but they cannnot have their fingerprints on anything. Plus, I suppose they are satisfied with a longer term plan where Obama is beat this year and Hillary runs in 2016. I doubt that she would win, but strange things happen in American politics, e.g., Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. And Joe Biden as VP?

Kansas City says, "It may also reflect that conservatives have a respect for, and maybe even a yearning for, liberals who will intelligently and honestly address issues."

Just so. Many of us are former so-called liberals who didn't leave the party as much as the party--and its evolving leftward, anti-liberty, anti-individual ideology--left us. We think of ourselves as principled and intellectually honest, so we appreciate it when we see it in others, even if, like AA, they still let smoke get in their eyes.

28) Mens rea shall be a valid defense in the case of any federal or state regulation not enacted by the appropriate legislature and signed into law by the executive officer.

29) Every citizen of the United States, and every foreign citizen legally residing in the United States, shall have an inalienable right to self-defense.

30) In every election for federal office the voters must be provided with the opportunity to vote for "none of the above" as an alternative. In the event that "none of the above" receives a plurality, the office shall be declared vacant, the election must be rerun in four calendar months, and all of the candidates for that office shall be debarred from contesting for that office for a period of ten years.

I am somewhat stymied. Truman, maybe, but I think his rebound perhaps has overrated him.

Eisenhower, maybe.

Both Truman and Eisenhower seem to be honest for politicians and they had success, which perhaps could be transferred to any time.

Polk is interesting because he expressly limited himself to one term, established signifcant goals, and met them.

I love Reagan, but he was a man for his time, probably not for any time. I also like Grant, who has been unfairly and inaccurately maligned, but he was a man for a different time.

Final answer, George Washington. He was a man of accomplishment. Turned down opportunities for greater power. Personal bravery. He led the successful revolution and the founding of the country. And seemed to be a man of principle.

Yeah, none of the above is my choice too. Clinton set up the subprime crisis and made corrupt political appointments and is currently looks way out of touch, or dishonest. Given who he is, I pick dishonest. Bush never vetoed anything, didn't push needed legislation effectively, and hung on to his appointees way past their sell date. And the mere thought of Clinton making more judicial appointments makes me want to curl up and die early.

I don't know who I would pick out of the current crop of candidates, but surely there are better qualified people out there than Clinton and Bush.

Are we talking about 1994-2000 moderate Clinton or current progressive populist Clinton? Also, are we talking about 2004-2008 ineffectual, distant Bush, or current gracious, non-politicking, non-Rovian Bush?

Either way I'm not sure we'd have a choice. Clinton would run for a third term because he's the teflon man and scandal never affected him the way it does other people, and because his ego still drives him to be a political kingmaker...Bush has seemed to be pretty much done with politics.

The biggest question that I want Bill Clinton to answer, is what does he think about Herman Cain's problems. Does he have any advice? Could he provide Cain a telephone number for the bimbo eruption group?

One six year term for president. Enough to sit astride a couple of congressional cycles, but without the need for re-election. Never able to be re-elected to federal public office and 50% tax on all lobbying income afterward.

This is worrisome, all these Democrats talking about changing our laws to grab more power. First there was the governor of one of the Carolinas talking about doing away with elections, now this. Not to mention their open embrace of anarchists and other protestors prone to violence in class warfare. I am very worried about the 2012 elections.

I want an amendment declaring that no individual with a law degree can serve in government (appointed or elected) on any level.

This! Lawyers can only be hired as political advisers. Even then, they can only wear heavy roughspun robes that must conceal most of their face. When they speak they may only do so with heads bowed and into their hands and then ONLY to their employer. And they have to refer to said employer as "sire". Hissing will be encouraged.

Ugh. Between the syphilitic hillbilly or a tangle-tongued compassionate conservative wimp who'd make a better Secretary of War than president? NOTA isn't strong enough to wash that bad taste out of my mouth.

Kansas, your suggestions are intriguing. I'd have picked either Eisenhower or Polk myself (I'm reading the new book "Eisenhower: The White House Years" right now; if you still think the enemy media caricature of Ike as a well-meaning but goofy chief executive has truth, this book will blow your prejudices away).

Washington's an excellent choice, but I think even more a "man of his time" than Reagan; his characteristic aloofness would not go over well today - though I absolutely agree with his disdain for Congress.

For me, I'd want a president who would get the government out of the way. McKinley or Coolidge would be my choice.

Washington's an excellent choice, but I think even more a "man of his time" than Reagan; his characteristic aloofness would not go over well today - though I absolutely agree with his disdain for Congress.

Give me a President that sends a letter to Congress rather than subject us to the D & P show that the State Of The Union has become.

"Hey! I've got an idea! We got our asses handed to us in that last election...on a historic scale...so let's make sure the opposition agrees, in the spirit of bipartisanship of course, to mix the seating together so nobody can see just how few of us there really are."

Carrie is exactly right about Clinton's lying making him unfit for office.

One of the saddest parts of the Clinton presidency was that he got away with sticking his finger in our face and lying to us in order to save his job. He not only got away with it. There was no significant amount of condemnation for it. The message he, and his party and friends in the media, delivered to the country was that it was okay to lie to get/keep something of value.

It was a moment for someone in the democratic party to stand up and say no, we cannot support someone who sticks his finger in our face and lies to us. There was not a single democrat with the character to do that. The democratic party, and more important, the country suffered as a result. And now, Clinton is treated as a successful president and a subject of honor. It was a bad and sad moment for the country.

Clinton is remarkably bright and an incredible political talker. He might even be very smart on policy (the record is less clear on that). But ultmiately, he had an insignificant presidency except for the ethical damage to the country. And he almost got his wife elected president, which would have compounded the damage.

I'm still naively surprised that the quality level of the mainstream Presidential candidates is so continually low and has been so for my conscious lifetime. It makes me almost understand Obama fever - if I had only been able to buy into it, but alas, I was not. I do understand the desire that people had, however, that allowed them to project onto him the qualities they deeply wished were there.

And that is beginning to include the cabinet and advisors as well.

Where are the geeks? I don't mean wannabes like fat, crazy old Al Gore, I mean the real thing. Shouldn't the first female president be Asian-American? I mean, really now. Yes, a very small percentage of the population, but a very high percentage of the competent, top-tier college-educated. In 2011, we're still farting about with "diversity" in the form of Obama or useless Preppies and various levels and colors of skeeve to solve 21st Century problems? Please.

I was happier before I paid attention, back when I was young and could still believe in libertarian principles. ;-)